creepypastafandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Venomous/@comment-Mikemacdee-20160715073440/@comment-Mikemacdee-20160715212254
Contract killers and serial killers exhibit the same homicidal tendencies and obsessions, so there's really not much distinction besides the fact that one gets paid to do what they do. The Iceman is a perfect example. So excuse me for the misnomer. The killer in this story exhibits no flaws, forgiving the fact that he/she is methodically murderous; and even then, the victims are revealed to be even worse, so the killer's murderous actions are totally justified in the end. On top of that, the universe bends to the killer's will to make them successful: he/she succeeds not because of skill, but pure dumb luck. One might even say "unrealistic luck" abilities. Not sure how he/she doesn't fit the Mary-Sue profile, unless the Mary-Sue has to be in high school, which it doesn't. Also, even if it's believable for a serial killer to never shut up about how awesome they are, it's still makes for a boring protagonist. So my assessment still stands. It's not enough to make a story from a killer's perspective: there has to be a human element. This narrator is an egotistical sociopath who happens to like animals more than people. There's nothing really tangible there. I didn't say that the Taipan's aggressiveness was unrealistic, I said the killer's total reliance on chance was unrealistic. I don't care how set in routine a person is, nor how aggressive an animal is, that doesn't mean the laws of probability overlooks either. Let's take into account that the snake is indeed super aggressive and venomous, and assume for the sake of argument that this kid had no chance of not crossing paths with it. What if the snake misses? and the kid gets away? The spiders actually made more sense because it involved putting them in the kid's clothes, but they'd still most likely crawl out of the helmet before he had a chance to put it back on. Again, a good methodical killer would leave nothing to chance: he/she would choose the best methods for a sure kill. Not dropping dangerous animals in the vicinity and hoping for the best. If this killer was hellbent on using these animals, there's no reason not to just kidnap the kids and lock them together in a room. They're kids, and they have certain times of day when they're completely unsupervised. Even without the animal kills, they'd be missing for days. I'd like to quote Raymond Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder" for emphasis: ''"There is one of Dorothy Sayers’ in which a man is murdered alone at night in his house by a mechanically released weight which works because he always turns the radio on at just such a moment, always stands in just such a position in front of it, and always bends over just so far. A couple of inches either way and the customers would get a rain check. This is what is vulgarly known as having God sit in your lap; a murderer who needs that much help from Providence must be in the wrong business." '' And yes, I got the part where he said, "nature biting back", which you seem to think was the cleverest thing ever. That was the whole reason for my pointing out how it doesn't make sense for a zoologist with an "avenging mother nature" mindset to punish dog abusers by feeding them to....snakes and spiders. Especially if the killer embodies mother nature like you suggest. You might've realized my meaning if you had actually read my critique instead of searching for flaws in it. I didn't have constructive comments because I didn't have anything positive to say about this. A story told from a killer's perspective can be fascinating. This was boring and unbelievable. All the research went into the animals, and not nearly enough into serial/professional murder methodology. I suppose I could say the language is handled competently, but a gold-plated DeLorean is still a DeLorean: it still has a flimsy chassis and still breaks down every two blocks. Finally, I don't think my readers are so stupid that I have to constantly remind them that I'm stating an educated opinion, and that I'm not God Almighty. That tends to only be necessary when the reader is an unhinged SJW who feels a constant need to empower his/her own pitiful ego by coming to the rescue of others. Next time you want to challenge a critique, get an intellectual to do it for you. Being passive-aggressive doesn't inherently give you the moral high ground, nor does it disguise the fact that you're talking down to people. Unlike you, I was actually focusing on the writing, not pretending to critique as an excuse to take cheap shots. Oh yeah, PS: "constructive criticism" doesn't mean "hugbox". It means "suggest improvements", which I have. I'll reiterate them again for your benefit, though the author probably already got the point: create methodical murders that don't rely so much on chance, humanize the killer so they're not intolerable to read, keep the punishment consistent with the crime or ditch the "avenging mother nature" theme altogether.